From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "John W. Linville" Subject: Re: d80211: clean up some list and loop code Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 19:00:02 -0500 Message-ID: <20061116234148.GB3297@tuxdriver.com> References: <1163718270.3392.19.camel@johannes.berg> <20061116232455.GA3297@tuxdriver.com> <1163720260.3392.24.camel@johannes.berg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev , Jiri Benc Return-path: Received: from ra.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.52]:26379 "EHLO ra.tuxdriver.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1424609AbWKQABL (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Nov 2006 19:01:11 -0500 To: Johannes Berg Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1163720260.3392.24.camel@johannes.berg> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 12:37:40AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > FWIW, I think I prefer the "for (;;)" version for endless loops. > > It looks more intentional to me. Some grep'ing showed nearly equal > > usage of "for (;;)" versus "while (1)". Is there any "official" > > preference? I don't see anything in CodingStyle about it. > > I think while (1) looks more intentional, but I suppose that's because I > grew up with pascal where you can't do all these weird things with for > loops. > > Feel free to drop this part of the patch if you wish, or, if you want, I > can resend without that too :) No need to resend. Any other opinions on this? I suppose it is just a beached discussion... -- John W. Linville linville@tuxdriver.com